Was there really a need to eliminate 'Guardian' as a creature type? I know the aim was generally to standardise MTG's types and get rid of the more esoteric ones, but a quick name search shows there's certainly room for guardians in magic. They could even be useful going forward (so far they're all bant colours with the exception of Guardian Beast.)

Plus some of the creature types produced since haven't exactly been super useful (noggle anyone?) Guardians could really be a build-around class-type if promoted, especially because of cards like Ivory Guardians.

I really miss the Guardian creature type, as it felt perfect for WU creatures that wanted to hang out and block. Harbor Guardian was my favorite, and I loved comboing it with Ivories and Sleight of Mind. Magic is better today than it was back in the day - mostly. But there are a lot of charming idiosyncracies and pleasantly quaint attributes that I miss, and this is way up there. I would still bring Guardian back if I could.

Back in the day, subtypes weren’t always capitalized in rules text, which sometimes made said text difficult to decipher. “Guardians” is capitalized on the subtype line, but not in the rules text. One might guess its rules text referred to any creatures of the type “Guardian” and not just Ivory Guardians. If you look at the Alpha Zombie Master, you’ll see a similar lack of capitalization on “zombie” in the text box, and we all know that guy affects all Zombie creatures. But other cards in the Legends set muddy the waters a bit with inconsistent capitalization. Blazing Effigy has “Effigy” capitalized, which might mean it isn’t referring to any creatures of the type Effigy (which it was) but rather other copies of itself. If you look at Clergy of the Holy Nimbus, you’ll see the self-referential “Clergy” in its text box--its subtype was “Priest”--so shortenin... (see all)